QUICK VERSION:
Liberals often under-value the importance of the citizenry having the ability to defend itself against governments doing cruel things. I was a Marine who saw our government impose its will , violently, on an entire population of civilians. Do you think it is wise to assume that same government would only do so to foreign civilians?
Conservatives often overlook that the Second Amendment calls for the right to bear arms in relation to well regulated militias.
How do we correct each side’s blind spots, identify shared values, and build common ground to reduce gun violence and still protect the second amendment? Read on to see how I would achieve this.
FULL VERSION:
Self defense is an important part of the value of the Second Amendment, and I think weapons for self defense and hunting are indisputably worth protecting. But to me, the Second Amendment’s primary value is to protect the ability of the citizenry to coordinate defense against governments that attempt to harm and dominate the population.
All rights come with responsibilities.
To me, the right to bear arms comes with a **responsibility** to bear arms in service to a community's defense, even - especially against authoritarian governments. Importantly, as it relates to preserving the right to bear arms while reducing gun violence, the Constitution implies that a right to bear arms is bound to the idea of a "well regulated militia." However, if that "militia" was confined to a state's national guard, which is part of the chain of command of the federal government, that would defeat the purpose of having an independent defense against the federal government.
Therefore, to have any way to enforce that this right (to bear arms) and this responsibility (to be part of a well regulated entity) remain in balance, and to also have independence of these groups from the federal government, I believe we need community defense organizations to ensure that those bearing arms are responsible to their community defense, and have the competence, discipline, and trust of their communities needed to carry out that defense effectively and ethically.
I think the best way to mediate this regulation is at the local level. Local communities should set their own standards, but those standards for their community defense must be overseen with federal protection to ensure that localities do not onerously preclude participation. For instance, anyone with an honorable discharge from the military, (and without a violent criminal record) should be considered competent, disciplined, and trusted enough to participate in a locality's citizen defense force. Any average citizen meeting basic standards of accountability should be allowed to participate in these organizations. And these community defense groups would only regulate weapons needed for community defense (assault weapons), whereas self defense and hunting weapons should remain freely accessible to law abiding citizens.
An added benefit to this interpretation of the Second Amendment, is that I believe it preserves access to arms, as the constitution clearly affords, but it will also dramatically reduce mass shootings by ensuring that those with access to the most military-applicable firearms are those vetted by responsible and trusted members of our communities.
As far as conventional policies go:
I support expanded background checks, but I do not think they will go very far in addressing the problem of mass shootings. I believe most mass shootings were, or could have been done by people who passed background checks. Likewise, most mass shootings were, or could have been done with weapons that don’t qualify as the largely arbitrarily defined “assault weapons.”
I support expanded Red Flag laws that allow the temporary removal of firearms from people making threatening gestures as long as due process is afforded promptly thereafter. I do want to clarify one thing: I support, what to me is the already existing right of the government to intervene in an imminent threatening situation. ie, someone is making threats of violence toward other people. And to the extent that is happening, and police can prove probable cause and get a warrant from a judge, I am ok with a temporary seizure of firearms as long as due process is extremely prompt.
I think it would be irresponsible of a public entity to disregard threats of violence. I believe this is starkly different than the example of a Reg Flag law inclusive of the government evaluating "thought crime" based on inference of mental health. I oppose that.I support funding school resource officers, or even better, school resource officers who are former Marines or other military veterans.
I also want to clarify - I oppose banning assault weapons absent the nuanced considerations I made above. I do call for local regulation so that there is local accountability, but until that ideal is realistically considered, I would stand my ground on the issue.
I support expanded mental healthcare. Becca Balint, my competitor, told me in a debate that, “The research shows that mental health has nothing to do with mass shootings.” We must have very different definitions of mental health. By my definition, ONLY those who are mentally unwell would ever solve their problems through harming innocent people. Clearly, there are underlying factors in how boys and men are taught (or not taught) to deal with their emotions that contribute to this problem. I think more research and investment in mitigating these underlying conditions is incredibly worthwhile.